1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 31st of October, 1996, writ petition of the petitioners, Ghafoor Ahmed etc. Was dismissed by the High Court in the following terms:-- "The substance of the grievance in this Constitutional petition is that respondent No,2 is threatening to change certain entries in the Revenue Record to the detriment of the petitioners.
2. ' Reply has been called where in para. No,11- the allegations have been denied and it has also been averred that, in fact, the Revenue Record is in possession of the Consolidation Officer, and therefore, even if he was minded, he could not change the entries. The comments of respondent No,1 are also to the same effect.
3. ' In view of the factual position, the apprehension of the petitioners seems to be misconceived.
4. However, even if there is some valid basis of some apprehension the remedy of the petitioner is a civil suit and not Constitutional petition.
5. ' Dismissed."
6. ' This petition for leave to appeal has been instituted by the petitioners against the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that there was no justification with the High Court to dismiss the petition of the petitioners in limine without resolving the real controversy between the parties.
2. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners because no final order has yet been passed against them. Their case is that threats have been issued to change the relevant entries in the Revenue Record which shall be detrimental to their interest. Para-wise comments were obtained from the respondents on the direction of the High Court. The respondents denied the assertion of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the petition of the petitioners has rightly been dismissed because the apprehension of the petitioners that adverse entries are likely to be made in the record, is wholly misconceived. No case for interference has been made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.